Delhi District Court
M/S Intex Furniture Pvt. Ltd vs Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited ... on 13 December, 2025
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF Sh. LALIT KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-02),
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 351/2024
M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited,
Through It's Authorized Signatory,
Having Its Regd. Office at:
A-61, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi - 110020.
Sh. Mohan Chand Upadhyay
Mobile: 7838232371
Email: [email protected] ........ Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited
Through its Managing Director
Registered Office at:
A-177, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,
New Delhi - 110020
Email ID: [email protected] ........Defendant
Date of Institution: 09.05.2024
Arguments concluded on : 03.12.2025
Date of Judgment: 13.12.2025
CS (COMM) 351/2024
M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited,
-: 2 :-
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs.25,73,338/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Seventy Three thousand Three Hundred thirty Eight only) alongwith interest pendent lite and future at the rate of 24% per annum as claimed and filed by M/s Intex furniture Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) against M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited A.P. Distributors and Sh. Subhash Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as defendants).
The crux of facts stated in brief is noted below:
Case of the plaintiff;
2.(a) That the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. The plaintiff Company has been engaged in the business of marketing, selling, Furniture, Home Furniture, Kitchen Furniture and specialized in the design, installation/fixing of various office Furniture, Home Furniture, Kitchen Furniture, and Institutional Furniture and also has earned high reputation in this field. Defendant are carrying the business of Engineering, designing and construction in the name and style of Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited and shown willingness for executing work of supply and installation and fixing of Modular Kitchen & Wardrobes at their project at South Asian University, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi.
2(b) It is submitted that plaintiff company performed its part and duly completed the CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 3 :- work as per the work order in pursuant to the defendant requirement and specifications and accordingly several invoices were raised in the name of the defendant ie. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited and a total outstanding of Rs. 6,12,79,182/- (incl. GST) was due upon the defendant and the defendant has partly paid the amount of Rs.5,77,23,557/- and TDS deduction is of Rs.9,82,287/-, accordingly an amount of Rs.25,73,338/- became due as outstanding upon the defendant on 03.11.2021.
2(c) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant has admitted and accepted the invoices raised by the plaintiff and also admitted that work which has been completed as per the work order and accordingly the Plaintiff Company has also issued Installation Completion Certificate dated 25.02.2021 to the defendant which was duly acknowledged by the defendant.
2(d) It is further the case of the plaintiff that legal notice dated 12.07.2023 was sent to defendant for the recovery of the outstanding amount of Rs.25,73,338/- and interest but despite service of the legal demand notice, the defendant has not paid the outstanding amount but has sent reply dated 12.07.2023 to the plaintiff citing false and frivolous grounds.
2(e) It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant failed to clear the payment after a lapse of around 27 months from due date 03.11.2021. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.25,73,338/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 4 :- Case of the defendant;
3.(a) Defendant has contested the case by filing Written Statement. The suit of the plaintiff has been challenged on the ground that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Even the plaintiff has concealed the relevant and material facts and documents from this court. It is submitted that the entire claim of the plaintiff for recovery is based on a purported statement of account allegedly maintained by the plaintiff itself.
(i). It is further submitted that vide Work Order dated 25-09-2018, the defendant sub-contracted the plaintiff the work for providing and fixing of Modular Kitchen and Wardrobes in project site at South Asian University, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi.
(ii). It is further submitted that the terms and conditions of the Work Order; the measurement was to be done on back-to-back basis as with Client i.e. (South Asian University). Additionally, the pricing included freight, material handling, installation, fixing, etc. Also as per BOQ for modular kitchen and wardrobe it was specifically mentioned that the face area of openable shutter and drawer shall be measured for payment.
(iii). It is further submitted that the final bill was acknowledged and signed by the plaintiff for Rs.5,93,20,713/- (Incl. GST) and was calculated as per quantity installed or fixed at the site.
(iv). It is further submitted that the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- was released on 03.11.2021 against 23rd RA Bill of dated 22.10.2021, for which complete and final acceptance was made.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 5 :- 3(b) It is further submitted that the present suit does not fall under the definition of commercial dispute. Further the suit in the present form is not maintainable because the plaintiff has failed to establish any liability against the defendant. It is further submitted that present suit is not a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)
(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. It is submitted that the plaintiff has already been paid fully and finally for the work executed by it under the work order and by way of the present suit. It is further submitted that plaintiff was severely deficient in service and never performed and completed work on time and instead raised several invoices in the defendant's name falsely. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was reminded several times for incomplete work at site and was also requested to increase the manpower and handover the building. Copy of the email dated 09-04-2021 by the defendant to the plaintiff requesting the plaintiff to increase the manpower and handover the building soon is attached herewith as Annexure D-1. A copy of the response dated 09-04-2021 by the plaintiff admitting the lapse is attached herewith Annexure D-2.
3(c) It is further submitted that according to the Work Order, the final bill was acknowledged and signed by the plaintiff for Rs. 5,93,20,713/- (Incl. GST) and was calculated as per quantity installed or fixed at the site. Further, the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- was released on 03.11.2021 against 23rd RA Bill of dated 22.10.2021, for which complete and final acceptance was made by the plaintiff and nothing CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 6 :- remains due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. 3(d) It is further submitted that the plaintiff was deficient in service and never performed and completed work on time and instead raised several invoices to the defendant falsely. The plaintiff raised excess invoice of Rs.6,12,79,182/- (Incl. GST) against the final bill of Rs. 5,93,20,713/- (Inc. GST). It is further submitted that the email dated 16-03-2023 referred to by the plaintiff reads as follows:
"Dear Mr Mohan, This is reference to the trailing mail; we again remind you that the Final Bill has been duly accepted as per the work executed at site, attached copy for your reference. Please note that we have given the work order and that is the item rate contract. We have not issued any P.O. So, whatever you executed at site we have bill as per work order. So, you are requested please give the credit note for excess invoice done by you and settle your final payment. If any issue then come to our office and settle the bill, for the same we have given one week time, if fails to attend then we shall not be entertain further. This mails treated as most urgent. Regards Harpal Singh"
It is submitted that the contents of the email itself clearly says that the work was on item rate contract and whatever work has been done, the same has been paid. It is submitted that the defendant received only one notice on 04.12.2023 whereas time to appear was 30.11.2023. Which was after the date fixed for mediation and no other notice was ever received by the defendant. The contents of Paragraph 18 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the suit has not been suitably valued by the Plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction or that appropriate court fee has been CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 7 :- paid.
3(e) It is further submitted that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. It is submitted that the entire suit is misconceived and an abuse of the process of law and does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present suit filed by the plaintiff Replication and issues;
4. Rejoinder / replication has been filed on behalf of plaintiff to the Written Statement of the defendant reiterating the facts of its own case and denying the averments made by the defendant in its Written Statement. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the actual and correct facts of the dispute are that the defendant had agreed to resolve the dispute by paying Rs.10,17,079/- against the total outstanding amount of Rs.25,73,338/- on October 14, 2022. Consequently, the full and final 23rd RA Bill (settlement bill) dated 22.10.2021 was signed and acknowledged by the plaintiff on 14.10.2022. This was further confirmed and elucidated by the plaintiff through email dated 12.04.2023 and the defendant did not reply to the same. It is submitted that the cause of action arose as per Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the defendant having registered office at A-177, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- I, New Delhi and therefore, falls under the jurisdiction of this court. In the rejoinder, it CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 8 :- is submitted by the plaintiff that in the email dated 12.04.2023 sent by plaintiff to defendant, an inadvertent typographical error led to the incorrect mention of the date "16th March 2020" instead of "16th March 2023". After completion of pleadings, issues came to be framed on 21.10.2024 as under:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form and also as per the Mandate of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? OPD
2. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this court? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of an amount of Rs. 25,73,338/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the decreetal amount, if yes, then at what rate and for which period? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit? OPP
7. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence 5(a). Matter was then listed for PE. PW-1 Sh. Sunit Sharma has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the following documents:
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 9 :-
1. Copy of incorporation of the plaintiff company is Mark-A.
2. Copy of extract of board resolution dated 20.06.2023 and 21.06.2023 is Mark B.
3. Certified copy of work order dated 25.09.2018 is Ex.PW1/1.
4. Copy of tax invoices are Mark-C (colly).
5. Copy of tax invoices dated 31.08.2020 and 24.07.2020 are Ex.PW1/2 (colly) running from 103-106.
6. Statement of account of the defendant is Ex.PW1/3.
7. Copy of installation completion certificate is Mark-D (colly) running from 110-112.
8. Copy of RA bill dated 22.10.2021 is Mark-E.
9. Computer generated email dated 30.01.2023 and 03.02.2023 are Mark-F(colly).
10. Legal notice dated 09.06.2023 is Ex.PW1/4.
11. Postal receipts are Ex.PW1/5.
12. Reply dated 12.07.2023 to the legal notice is Ex.PW1/6.
13. Non starter report is Ex.PW1/7.
5(b) PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant. During cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant, PW-1 has deposed that he is associated with the group company namely Intex Technologies India Ltd since June, 2023. He CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 10 :- has no role in any manner for the present transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. He has no personal knowledge of the case and he would be deposing on the basis of documents shown to him by the plaintiff and also the documents of the defendant on record. He deposed that Mr. Mohan Chand Upadhyay was earlier the Director with the company and as per his memory he left the plaintiff company in the year 2024. He further deposed that he is not aware about the exact month when Mr. Upadhyay had left the company. He further deposed that document Mark B is extract of minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors and not a complete board resolution. He admitted that in the second board meeting he and Mr. Upadhyay were simultaneously appointed for this case. The first resolution, whereby he and Mr. Upadhyay were appointed to deal with this case, is dated 21.06.2023 and the second resolution whereby he and Mr. Upadhyay were appointed to deal with this case is dated 21.06.2023. PW-1 again said, there are no two resolutions but only one resolution vide which he, Mr. Upadhaya and Mr. Sumit Sharma were appointed to deal with this case simultaneously. His appointment with the group company is dated 20.06.2023 as CS and Deputy Legal Manager. PW-1 further deposed that the work order for this transaction is for the year 2018 and the transaction concluded in the year 2021. PW- 1 denied that he is not authorized and not competent to appear before the court and to depose in this matter as he has no personal knowledge of this case. He deposed that the details of the case was disclosed to him when he prepared for the evidence of this case. He further deposed that he is not aware if the complete mail trail between plaintiff and defendant has been shown to him by the officials of the plaintiff company. He further CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 11 :- deposed that the transaction was on the basis of work order of the year 2018. He further deposed that he does not know the exact date and month of the work order. PW-1 has seen all the invoices pertaining to this case in the file. He admitted that plaintiff is claiming on the basis of all the invoices placed on record which are Mark C (colly). Question was asked to PW-1:
Q: Have you also considered the invoices which are cancelled one and these are 07 in number and are available at 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101?
A: I do not remember.
5(c) PW-1 further deposed that defendant company had assigned the construction of modular kitchen work to plaintiff company. He is not aware whether the condition pertaining to the measurement for day to day work as mentioned in work order Ex.PW1/1 in clause 5 is complied or not. PW-1 denied that the condition mentioned in work order Ex.PW1/1 in clause 5 has not been followed. PW-1 is not aware about the details of the work order so he cannot answer about the detailing of payment pertaining to modular kitchen. Question was asked to PW-1:
Ques: Can you show from the record where is the measurement of the face area of openable shutter and drawer?
Ans. I cannot say and I do not know.
PW-1 further deposed that he has seen document Mark-E at page no.113 filed on CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 12 :- behalf of plaintiff. PW-1 cannot tell whose signatures are there at point X. Plaintiff has claimed the total amount as per invoice and not the settled amount. Witness /PW-1 volunteered that as the settlement amount has not been paid by the defendant within time. PW-1 denied that the document Mark-E at page no.113 is a settlement document and not a RA bill. Witness deposed that he does not recollect whether he has received any e-mail from the defendant on 09.04.2021. He cannot say if plaintiff company have received this from the defendant.
PW-1 admitted that Mr. Mohan Chand Upadhyay was a director in the plaintiff company and was operating e-mail ID [email protected]. It is further deposed by PW-1 that they have received the mail dated 16.03.2023 sent by defendant company to plaintiff company which is Ex.PW1/3. Witness volunteered that they have replied to this mail on 12.04.2023 but he does not remember the content of the same. PW-1 further deposed that plaintiff company has received some amount from the defendant after issuance of RA bill dated 22.10.2021. Witness volunteered that the settlement has taken place later after considering the aforesaid amount.
PW-1 deposed that he does not recollect this amount but it could be 7-8 Lakhs. He has not mentioned in his plaint as well as his affidavit in chief that he has received Rs.7-8 lakhs from the defendant. PW-1 denied that he has deliberately concealed this fact. PW-1 further deposed that there was no settlement agreement ever executed between the parties. Witness volunteered that one RA bill has been settled which is Mark-E and an e-mail has been sent to this effect to the defendant.
PW-1 further deposed that he has not placed on record any such e-mail. He is CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 13 :- not aware whether plaintiff has received e-mail dated 03.02.2023 sent by defendant company to the plaintiff company. PW-1 again said, mail has been received but they have not taken any action as they have not accepted the submission of the defendant. Question were asked to PW-1:
Ques: Are you aware that the invoices were supposed to be on installation basis but the plaintiff company has issued invoice on the basis of supply of item though the same were not installed fully by wrongly showing the same as installed?
Ans. I do not have any idea.
Ques: By not bringing on record, the e-mail dated 09.04.2021 and 16.03.2023, you have concealed the material facts from this Court?
Ans. It is incorrect.
PW-1 denied the suggestion that he is not aware about the true facts pertaining to the present case. Question were asked to PW-1:
Ques. Whether the grand total amount as mentioned in Mark-E at page 113 of the plaint include GST or not?
Ans. It does not include GST, however, the GST is mentioned separately in the said document.
Ques: Is it correct that if the GST be added to the grand total amount as mentioned in Mark-E to be Rs. 50271791/-, the total amount would be Rs. 59320713/-?
Ans. It is matter of record.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 14 :- PW-1 denied the suggestion that since the total amount was calculated to be Rs. 59320713/- as mentioned by the defendant company in its mail dated 03.02.2023 but the total bill raised by the plaintiff company was Rs.61279182/-, therefore, the defendant company had requested for the credit note for the excess amount and there was no settlement as deposed by me.
Question were asked to PW-1:
Ques: Has plaintiff company issued any credit note to the defendant in the present transaction?
Ans. All the accepted credit notes were granted.
Ques: Can you point out from the record, what were the credit no accepted and granted?
Ans. I can not verify the same.
PW-1 deposed that he was not the part of the alleged settlement. He denied the suggestion that he has concealed the documents. He further denied that suggestion that he is deposing falsely with regards to credit notes. Question were asked to PW-1:
Ques. Can you point out from the record, which letter dated 22.10.2021, you are referring?
Ans. By letter I mean Mark-E at page 113 of the plaint and no other letter except the same ever existed.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 15 :- PW-1 denied the suggestion that since he was not part of the alleged settlement, hence he does not have any personal knowledge of the same. Witness volunteered stated that as he has mentioned earlier, he has no personal knowledge about the present transaction and he is deposing on the basis of documents only. Question were asked to PW-1:
Ques: The document which were placed on record are the documents ever placed before you at the time of signing of the present affidavit Ex.PW1/A?
Ans. Yes.
Ques: Is there any other document, you had shown before signing the affidavit?
Ans. No. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in the affidavit. Defendant Evidence 6(a). Thereafter, matter was fixed for defendant's evidence. Defendant has examined Sh. Jagjeet Singh as DW-1. DW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1) Copy of email dated 09.04.2021 by defendant, Ex.DW-1/1.
2) Copy of response dated 09.04.2021 by plaintiff, Ex.DW-1/2.
3) Copy of email dated 16.03.2023 along with affidavit of CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 16 :- Jagjeet Singh and certification under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act R/w. Section 4 of the IT Act, 2000, Ex.DW-1/3 (colly).
4) Authorization letter, Ex. DW-1/4.
6(b). In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, question were asked to DW-1:
Q. What is yours roles and responsibilities in the defendant company? Ans. I am working in the legal department and my role is to handle matters of the company.
Q. From which date you are working with the defendant company? Ans. I am working with the defendant company since 22.09.2022. Q. Do you have personal knowledge of the matter? Ans. I do not have personal knowledge of the subject matter. I am deposing on behalf of the company based on records maintained by the company?
(Kindly see the work order dated 25.09.2018, Ex.PW-1/1) Q. What is the total work order value as per the work order dated 25.09.2018?
Ans. Work order value was tentative of an amount Rs.61382189.53/- but final value of the work would be decided as per the material supplied and executed on the site?
Q. What is the total amount as per records of the defendant company CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 17 :- paid to the plaintiff in pursuant to the work order dated 25.09.2018? Ans. Defendant company has paid the payment of Rs.59320713/-, which is made against the 23rd RA bill dated 22.10.2021 which was the final amount after the execution of work.
Q. Can you please show from the records any document with respect to total payment of Rs. 59320713/- made by the defendant company to the plaintiff company?
Ans. As per annexure 7, Mark E, it is mentioned that previous bill amount is the equal to Rs.49402914/- which was without GST. After adding GST the remaining amount to be payable to the plaintiff company was Rs.1017079/- out of which Rs.7 Lakhs was paid on 03.11.2021 and defendant requested to the plaintiff company to provide credit note of rupees approximately Rs.25 Lakhs for the excess billing raised on defendant company.
Q. Please see my above question, which is specifically with respect to the total payment of Rs.59320713/- but is still you have not answered with respect to any document on record showing payment of Rs.59320713/-. Please explain.
Ans. As mentioned in above answer, the amount which was paid without GST, however, as per the account maintained by the company same of Rs.59320713/- will be reflected and I can provide the relevant records from the company.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 18 :- Q. Can you please confirm that Rs.59320713/- includes the payment of Rs.7 Lakhs made by the defendant company to the defendant company?
Ans. Yes.
(Please see Annexure-7/Mark E), Q. Please confirm that what is the net amount payable as per the 23rd RA bill dated 22.10.2021.
Ans. Net amount including GST after recovery of advance was Rs.1017079/-.
Q. What do you mean by "after recovery of advance" as mentioned in your above answer?
Ans. In general practice, defendant company made certain amount in advance at the time of execution of work contract which would be recover from the RA bills.
Q Do you mean that the above said payable amount Rs. 1017079/-is after adjustment of such an advance amount as stated by you above? Ans. Yes.
Q. Do you mean to say that as per records of the defendant company after payment of Rs.7 Lakhs, only Rs.3,17,079/- is payable to the plaintiff company?
Ans. As per annexure 7, it is so but after reconciliation defendant company find that certain debit notes are pending after adjustment of CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 19 :- which no amount was remaining.
Q. Do you mean to say that the 23rd RA Bill dated 22.10.2021 is not valid as certain debit notes are pending to be raised?
Ans. No. Above Annexure 7 was the final bill raised by the plaintiff company and the only amount payable was Rs.1017079/-.
Q. Can you please confirm on which date 23rd RA Bill dated 22.10.2021 was accepted as a full and final payment?
Ans. May be on 22.10.2021.
Q. What is the reason that the defendant company has not filed ledger maintained for the plaintiff company?
Ans. I cannot say.
Q. What is the reason that the defendant company has not filed on record any document to prove that the defendant company has made payment of Rs.59320713/-?
Ans. Defendant company filed email dated 16.03.2023 in which it was clearly mentioned that final amount Rs.59320713/- already paid and the plaintiff has any dispute then he can come to office and provide credit note of the excess bill amount. (Please see the email dated 16.03.2023, Annexure-3/Ex.DW-1/3).
Q. Please confirm that where it is mentioned that final amount Rs.59320713/- already paid and the plaintiff has any dispute then he can come to office and provide credit note of the excess bill amount?
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 20 :- Ans. It is the reply of the mails sent by the plaintiff in which it is referred that final has been duly accepted as per the work executed at site. In that statement amount of Rs.59320713/- was referred. Q. Can you please confirm from the records the attachment of the email dated 16.03.2023 is filed on record?
Ans. It was in the mail.
Q. Can you please confirm that what was the amount which was retained by the defendant company in terms of the clause 10 of the work order dated 25.09.2018?
Ans. Its about Rs. 22 Lakhs to Rs.25 Lakhs, which was already adjusted in 23rd RA bill dated 22.10.2021.
DW-1 deposed that he cannot say whether the adjustment of Rs.22 Lakhs to Rs.25 Lakhs was only done after the completion of the entire work under the contract. As per the contract, the adjustment could have been made at the time of final payments. DW-1 denied the suggestion that defendant has only paid the sum of Rs.5,87,05,844/- to the plaintiff. DW-1 volunteered that as a matter of fact, a sum of Rs.5,93,20,713/- has been paid. DW-1 admitted that they have not placed on record the books of account or ledger. However, he volunteered that the amount stands acknowledged in the RA bills.
DW-1 further deposed that there was a difference in relation with the quantity of the work done at the site by the plaintiff and not the scope of work. He further deposed that defendant had sent mails Ex.DW-1/1 to the plaintiff for completion of the CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 21 :- pending / deficient work. However, DW-1 volunteered that the same was also admitted by the plaintiff vide its email / Ex.DW-1/2. DW-1 admitted that the work was completed in all respect before the final bill.
Question was asked to DW-1:
Q. What do you mean by the measurement on back to back basis as per clause 5 of work order dated 25.09.2018? Ans. Meaning of this clause is whatever the work plaintiff done at the site he would get it measured in presence of the contractor/defendant and the client's representatives. DW-1 deposed that the measurement as discussed above has to be done before RA bill. DW-1 denied that plaintiff company raised RA bill before measurement. DW-1 on seeing tax invoices from page no. 103 to 106, Ex.PW-1/2 deposed that the invoices are acknowledged by the defendant company on 24.07.2020, 27.07.2020 and 31.08.2020 for material supplied at the site. However, final bill would be raised after execution of the same and the measurement with the plaintiff.
DW-1 further deposed that the defendant company made payments on the basis of RA bills and not on the basis of tax invoices. On seeing the annexure A6/Mark D, at page nos.110 and 112, DW-1 deposed that page no.112 letter is not concerned with the defendant company, as it is issued to some MBL Infrastructure Ltd. For 110 and 111, he cannot say the dispute arise or not. DW-1 denied the suggestion that there is any contradiction between his statement made that day and the reply to the legal notice Ex.PW-1/6. He further denied that he is deposing falsely.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 22 :- Final Arguments
7. This court has heard the arguments of parties at length and perused the record meticulously along-with written submission of both the parties. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1 :
WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN ITS PRESENT FORM AND ALSO AS PER THE MANDATE OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015? OPD Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit in a commercial court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff relies on documentary proofs (work order, invoices, RA bills, statements) and submits the Court has jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable.
On the other hand, defendant argued that (a) the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff has not proved authority of the persons who instituted or verified the plaint. (b) PW-1 (who testified) is not competent as he joined the group only in 2023 and has no personal knowledge of the 2018-2021 transaction.
(c) the Board Resolution(s) placed (Mark B) are only extracts. (d) the plaintiff has not established it is a "commercial dispute" triable as a commercial suit.
Board resolution / appointment documents (Mark B): These are in the record but CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 23 :- PW-1 admits that it is an extract not necessarily a complete resolution. PW-1's cross- examination clearly shows he was not involved in the project at the relevant time (2018-21), and joined the group in June 2023. He repeatedly admitted his evidence is based on documents provided by the company and that he does not have personal knowledge of day-to-day workings, measurements, or whether measurement clauses in the work order were complied with.
During cross-examination, PW-1 states that he has no personal knowledge of the transaction, that he was not employed at the company during the actual contract period and that he prepared his evidence after looking at files. He could not identify signatures on documents, could not account for cancelled invoices, and was unsure about email trails being shown to him. These admissions materially weaken the plaintiff's evidentiary position.
It is settled proposition of law that suit must be instituted by a person competent under the Companies Act / Rules and the pleadings must be verified by an authorized person. Evidence tendered must be by witness(es) having personal knowledge or by records which properly authenticate the documents. Where the plaintiff is a company, authority to file/verify and the authorization of the deponent must be clear either by Board resolution, power of attorney, or consistent documentary proof.
An affidavit deposing to facts on the basis of documents alone without personal knowledge is admissible as evidence of documents but is weak for facts requiring personal knowledge (e.g., acceptance, site measurement, course of dealings). Courts have repeatedly required parties to produce competent witnesses with personal CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 24 :- knowledge where possible.
The plaint is verified by persons thereof but the real challenge is whether the plaintiff has proved that the person who filed or verified had authority at time of suit (or whether the person deposing had authority to represent the company). Mark B being only an extract undermines the chain of authorization. PW-1's lack of personal knowledge makes his evidentiary value limited. The defendants' specific pleadings on lack of authorization are substantial. Plaintiff could have addressed the gap by producing full board resolution(s) or authorization letters showing continued authority, it did not. The defendant's challenge on this score is partially sustained.
So far as the commercial court jurisdiction is concerned, there is no real dispute that the subject matter (construction / supply / installation contract) falls within the ambit of commercial disputes (transactions of high value, commercial nature). That ground of maintainability under Commercial Courts Act is not persuasive.
In view of the above, it can be said that the suit is defective in presentation of authority/competence of the plaintiff's deponent and the plaintiff has not satisfactorily proved authorization for institution/verification through contemporaneous Board Resolution or POA. This defect impacts the evidentiary value of plaintiff's oral testimony. On strict technical maintainability the matter is otherwise a commercial dispute and within the Court's jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff's failure to prove requisite authorization and the infirmity in plaintiff's primary witness is a material defect and counts against the plaintiff in assessing its overall claim. Therefore Issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 25 :- ISSUE NO.2 WHETHER THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANT? OPD Ld. Counsel four plaintiff argued that arguments there is clear cause of action and Maintains cause of action exists on the basis of invoices unpaid, RA running account shows outstanding balance of Rs.25,73,338 as on 03.11.2021, defendant failed to pay despite notice.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that no cause of action survives as final RA bill dated 22.10.2021 (Mark E) was accepted as full & final and subsequent reconciliation/admissions show the plaintiff has been paid. Defendant stresses emails and RA bill showing net payable and payments. Defendant also contends any amount claimed by plaintiff results from erroneous invoicing (supply basis instead of measurement basis) and therefore no continuing cause exists.
Perusal of record reveals that RA Bill dated 22.10.2021 (Mark E) shows a "final" bill figure of Rs.5,02,71,791 (excl. GST) and total inclusive Rs.5,93,20,713 (incl. GST). It also shows prior receipts and adjustments. There is an endorsement said to be "Full & Final Accepted" the record indicates plaintiff accepted at least by endorsement and correspondence. PW-1's evidence is ambivalent about the precise acceptance language but does not positively deny the document's existence or endorsement. DW-1 affirmed that final bill figure and explained that after adjustments, and after payment(s) including Rs.7,00,000 on 03.11.2021, no sum was CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 26 :- payable except some differences which defendant maintained were adjusted by debit notes / recoveries.
Statement of account (Ex.PW1/3): A running account maintained by plaintiff showing invoices and receipts. PW-1 relied on it but admitted it is a company document and includes cancelled invoices; he could not say whether cancelled invoices were excluded from final reckoning.
E-mails (Mark F, Ex DW1/3 etc.): Defendant relies upon emails dated 03.02.2023 and 16.03.2023 (filed in defense) which categorically reference final bill figures and request for credit notes for excess billing. Plaintiff sought to place emails of 07.03.2023, 16.03.2023 and 12.04.2023 by an application under Order XI Rule 5 CPC but the application was dismissed (vide order dated 12.11.2024). The record contains defendant's emails pointing to changes, reconciliation and requests for credit notes.
There is settle proposition of law that a cause of action is the bundle of facts giving a person right to seek judicial relief. If facts which ground the claim have been resolved by acceptance/settlement, or the plaintiff has admitted final acceptance, then cause of action may be extinguished. An admission by an authorized agent of a company in a document such as a final bill which is endorsed as "Accepted- full & final" is legally significant and may extinguish future claims on the same matter unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion, or void-ability. The bill stands accepted and settled in full, with no questions arising in view of the Supreme Court judgment in ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705, finality of bills once accepted; though those cases concern interpretation and application, the core principle of finality CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 27 :- applies).
Now question arises as to : Does Mark E create or extinguish cause of action? Mark E is a contemporaneous RA/final bill with numerical reconciliation. It contains an acknowledgment of amounts received and an annotation of "Full and final accepted" (the record shows acceptance). PW-1's inability to deny or explain away that acceptance undermines plaintiff's present claim that a large amount remains due. The defendant's witness (DW-1) explained that after recoveries and the payment of 03.11.2021, the net outstanding in their books was either negligible or adjusted. The plaintiff has not produced independent, convincing evidence of continuing liability after 22.10.2021.
Effect of emails and non-production by plaintiff: Important emails on record pertaining to defendant dated 03.02.2023 and 16.03.2023, and plaintiff's failure to produce or rely upon its own reconciliation sheet demonstrate inconsistency in plaintiff's case. If the plaintiff's own statement of account is to be trusted, it should reconcile to the RA Bill; instead, PW-1 could not explain cancelled invoices. The final bill date is 22.10.2021 and suit was filed 06.05.2024 (per the plaint), which is after more than two years. While limitation may not be a ground pleaded, the long delay without correspondence establishing a fresh cause of action weakens a claim. Moreover plaintiff's claimed settlement of 14.10.2022 is unproven.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion and on the basis of material placed on record, there is no clear surviving cause of action in favour of the plaintiff for the substantial amount claimed. The RA bill and endorsements, the defendant's CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 28 :- documentary emails regarding reconciliation and credit notes, and the plaintiff's inability to explain cancelled invoices/create an unambiguous ledger show that the alleged outstanding amount is not established. Hence Issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT APPROACHED THIS COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS AND SUPPRESSED THE MATERIAL FACTS FROM THIS COURT? OPD Defendant alleges that plaintiff suppressed material documents, notably email dated 09.04.2021 where defendant points to incomplete work and demands completion; email 16.03.2023 where defendant explicitly refers to final accepted bill and requests credit notes for excess billing and the plaintiff's own internal reconciliations and other correspondence. Defendant argues that suppression is deliberate to mislead the Court and that such concealment dis-entitles plaintiff to relief.
Whereas plaintiff denies deliberate suppression and claims inadvertent omission and seeks to rely on other emails and RA Bills; says full trial has been held and plaintiff placed available documents.
Documents Ex DW1/1 (09.04.2021) and Ex DW1/3 (16.03.2023), these emails are on record in the defendant's affidavit and were produced with defendant's evidence. They show (a) communications pointing out incomplete/deficient work in CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 29 :- April 2021 and (b) communications in 2023 that identify the final bill figure and insist on credit note of excess invoicing. PW-1 admitted receiving these e-mails but it is not clear that he placed them before the Court as the plaintiff's exhibit list does not contain them. PW-1 admitted that he could not confirm if the complete mail trail was shown to him. Plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 5 CPC to place some emails was dismissed (Order dated 12.11.2024). That dismissal confirms the Court's procedural approach and raises the question of why the plaintiff did not originally rely on all relevant documents.
It is settled doctrine of clean hands / suppression that Equity and law expect parties to place all material facts before the court. Suppression of material documents effecting the substantive case particularly documents that weaken plaintiff's case, is a serious lapse and may disentitle a party to relief.
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) SCC1 or AIR 1994 SC 853 clarified that a party suppressing material facts cannot get discretionary relief i.e. perjury or deliberate concealment is a grave matter.
Materiality of suppressed documents: The e-mails and documents not produced by the plaintiff relate directly to the defendant's defence that there was excess invoicing and incomplete work. They directly impact calculation of the final amount payable. Non-production deprived the Court of opportunity to appraise plaintiff's assertions in light of contemporaneous dialogue.
PW-1's admission of receipt and lack of production: PW-1 admitted receiving e-mails and that he did not know if complete mail trail was shown to him. This CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 30 :- inconsistency is damaging.
It may be seen as to why suppression matters here in this case. The withheld documents, if accepted at face value for defendant, support defendant's position both factually (incomplete work/excess invoice) and legally (request for credit note and acceptance of final bill). The plaintiff's present claim is directly weakened by those documents.
On balance of probabilities, plaintiff did suppress material documents or, at minimum, failed to produce material contemporaneous communications which a prudent claimant would have produced. This weighs heavily against the plaintiff's credibility. Accordingly Issue No.3 is decided against the plaintiff .
ISSUE NO.4 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR A DECREE OF RECOVERY OF AN AMOUNT OF Rs.25,73,338/- IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANT?OPP ISSUE NO.5 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST ON THE DECREETAL AMOUNT, IF YES, THEN AT WHAT RATE AND FOR WHICH PERIOD?OPP ISSUE NO.6 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ALSO ENTITLED TO THE COST OF THE SUIT?
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 31 :- OPP Issues No.4, 5 and 6 are taken together being interconnected. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that work completed, invoices raised and partly paid leaving Rs.25,73,338 due (according to plaintiff's running account), RA bill and installation completion certificate support the claim, defendant admitted liability in cross- examination and DW-1 conceded that following the RA bill and adjustments only Rs.3,17,079 was payable (plaintiff contends even that admission establishes portion of claim) and seeks interest @ 24% p.a. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that payment was on the basis of RA/measurement and not supply invoices, final / 23rd RA bill (Mark E) was accepted as full & final and defendant made payments and retention/adjustments left no outstanding. The plaintiff raised erroneous supply-based invoices and plaintiff's witness is incompetent. Further several invoices were cancelled and plaintiff failed to produce complete books / ledgers to substantiate running account.
This court would go through the principal pieces of documentary evidence one by one, and how the oral testimony treats them.
1. Work Order dated 25.09.2018 (Ex PW1/1) • Content: Item-rate / BOQ structure with clause that measurement / verification and payment will be on back-to-back basis with the client; face area of openable shutter and drawer to be measured for payment. The work order contemplates measurement-based billing and verification. PW-1 admitted that he was not conversant with clause-wise compliance and could not point to measurement records.
CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 32 :- This point critically undercuts plaintiff's attempt to rely on supply invoices as evidence of entitlement. Tax Invoices (Mark C) and RA Bill dated 22.10.2021 (Mark E). Tax invoices (supply invoices) exist for various supplies (pages 103-106 etc.). PW-1 relies on these. However, the work order requires measurement and RA billing. PW-1 could not show measurement sheets or joint measurement verification, and admitted being unsure about cancelled invoices (seven cancelled invoices appear in the record). Mark E is the 23rd RA bill, the party who prepared it as "final bill" and the entries of "advance recovery" / "GST additions" are recorded. The defendant relies on Mark E as the conclusive reconciliation. There is an endorsement indicating acceptance. DW-1, though not personally involved at the earliest stages, referenced company records and stated the net payable after reconciliation was Rs.10,17,079/- gross and that Rs.7,00,000/- was paid on 03.11.2021. After further adjustments / debit notes, DW-1 explained nothing further was payable (or reconciliations left no outstanding). Plaintiff's witness could not rebut or provide ledgers showing otherwise. The absence of ledger entries from defendant is noted, but the plaintiff did not succeed in proving the contrary with primary books of account. The plaintiff's running account (Ex.PW1/3) is self-serving and includes cancelled invoices which were not explained.
Installation Completion Certificate (Mark D) and plaintiff relies on these certificates as proof of completion. But the defendant contested completion of parts earlier, referencing emails (Ex DW1/1) showing reminder to increase manpower and complete lapses. The installation completion certificate's authenticity/ scope to prove CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 33 :- every item of measurement is not proved by plaintiff through joint measurement or client certification. PW-1 could not prove the client's acknowledgment as per contract terms.
E-mail correspondence (Mark F and emails relied upon by defendant). Defendant placed on record emails which assert final bill figure and request for credit notes for excess billing (03.02.2023 and 16.03.2023). Plaintiff attempted to place some emails belatedly but the application was dismissed. The defendants' emails show they contested certain invoices and counted adjustments. Plaintiff did not place contemporaneous replies or reconciliations showing a final balance of Rs.25,73,338/-. PW-1's repeated inability to identify documents or to show that the plaintiff accepted only a portion of the RA bill and pursued the balance is telling.
Payment evidence (e.g., receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- on 03.11.2021. There is evidentiary indication (as admitted by PW-1 and DW-1) that Rs.7,00,000 was paid; PW-1 conceded receipts but failed to quantify them consistently in pleadings. PW-1 admitted he had not disclosed in his affidavit that certain amounts were received which is a major omission.
It is to be seen that plaintiff bears the burden to prove its case. Where the contract is measurement-based and RA bills are the accepted mode of settlement, the plaintiff should prove the measurements, joint verification, running account reconciliation, and ledger entries supporting outstanding balance. The plaintiff failed to provide these.
It is settled principle of law that an accepted final bill operates to settle accounts CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 34 :- unless vitiated by fraud or coercion is well recognized, in ONGC vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (Supra) which emphasize contractual finality of reconciliation. The plaintiff has not alleged coercion or fraud with supporting evidence and mere regret or later computation is insufficient.
Doctrine of approbate and reprobate / estoppel: Where a party accepts a final reconciliation, it cannot later turn around and claim a higher sum unless there is clear mistake, fraud or misrepresentation. Plaintiff's own documents demonstrate reconciliation and acceptance. When contract requires measurement, invoices without supporting measurement and client acceptance carry little weight.
Plaintiff's emphasis on running account: The plaintiff asks the Court to rely on its internal statement of account (Ex.PW1/3). But such a statement is a self-generated summary; without books of account and ledger reconciliation, and with admitted cancelled invoices, the statement's probative value is weak. PW-1's inability to point to cancelled invoices or to show they were excluded in computing the claimed outstanding damages the plaintiff.
Defendant's focus on RA/measurements and emails: The defendant's case coheres: the contract emphasized measurement; the RA bill is the mode of settlement; defendant's emails flagged excess billing and requested credit notes; and payment entries show significant amounts were paid. DW-1's testimony, though partly hearsay and reliant on company records, is consistent with contemporaneous documentary material in the record.
Therefore, in view of the effort at discussion, the plaintiff has failed to prove the CS (COMM) 351/2024 M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited, -: 35 :- substantive claim for Rs.25,73,338/-. The plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof: there are no measurement sheets, no ledger proved, important emails were not placed forward by plaintiff, and RA Bill (Mark E) with acceptance extinguishes, or at least casts grave doubt on the claim and consequently the plaintiff is not entitled to decree for Rs.25,73,338/-.
Since plaintiff's principal claim is not established, no decretal amount exists to attract interest. Plaintiff's separate claim for interest at 24% per annum has no foundation where the principal is not proved. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to any interest and cost. Hence, Issue no.4, 5 and 6 are decided against the plaintiff.
In view of above discussions, since the Issue No.1 to 6 are decided against the plaintiff, therefore, present suit is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
lalit kumar
lalit Date:
(Announced in the Open Court kumar 2025.12.13
on 13.12.2025) 18:07:58
(This judgment contain 35 pages and +0530
each page bears my signature.)
(LALIT KUMAR)
District Judge
(Commercial Court-02)
South-East, Saket Courts, ND
CS (COMM) 351/2024
M/s Intex Furniture Private Limited vs M/s Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited,